In re: Robert Edwin Martin

FILED FEB 27 2018 1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION SUSAN M. SPRAUL, CLERK 2 U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT 3 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT 4 5 In re: ) BAP No. AZ-17-1231-KuBL ) 6 ROBERT EDWIN MARTIN, ) Bk. No. 4:16-bk-00443-SHG ) 7 Debtor. ) ______________________________) 8 ) ROBERT EDWIN MARTIN, ) 9 ) Appellant. ) 10 ) M E M O R A N D U M* ______________________________) 11 12 Submitted Without Oral Argument on February 23, 2018 13 Filed - February 27, 2018 14 Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona 15 Honorable Scott H. Gan, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding 16 _____________________________________ 17 Appearances: Appellant Robert Edwin Martin pro se on brief ______________________________________ 18 19 Before: KURTZ, BRAND, and LAFFERTY, Bankruptcy Judges. 20 21 Chapter 71 debtor, Robert Edwin Martin (Martin), appeals 22 from the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion to transfer 23 24 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication. Although it may be cited for whatever persuasive value it may 25 have (see Fed. R. App. P. 32.1), it has no precedential value. 26 See 9th Cir. BAP Rule 8013-1. 1 27 Unless otherwise indicated, all chapter and section references are to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532, and 28 Rule references are to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. -1- 1 his closed bankruptcy case from the District of Arizona to the 2 Central District of California. We AFFIRM. 3 I. FACTS 4 On January 19, 2016, Martin filed a chapter 7 petition. 5 Martin listed as his sole creditor The California Department of 6 Corrections (CDC) with a judgment lien for $526,820. Martin 7 obtained his § 727 discharge and the case was closed on 8 September 27, 2016. 9 In October 2016, Martin filed an Ex Parte Motion for 10 Issuance of a Writ of Execution by the United States Marshal. 11 The bankruptcy court denied the motion, finding that the debt 12 owed to the CDC arose from a restitution order which was not 13 discharged and remained a valid debt. There was thus no basis 14 for a writ of execution for recovery of Martin’s property. The 15 bankruptcy court denied Martin’s motion for reconsideration of 16 its decision and Martin appealed to this Panel (BAP No. AZ-17- 17 1073). The Panel dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 18 because it was late-filed. 19 In July 2017, Martin filed a Notice and Motion for 20 Registration in the Central District of California (Motion), 21 seeking to have his closed bankruptcy case transferred from the 22 District of Arizona to the Central District of California. The 23 bases for the transfer were that Martin had relocated to 24 San Bernardino County2 in April 2016 and that his sole creditor, 25 CDC, continued to claim payment on the dischargeable debt and 26 27 2 Debtor is incarcerated in a private penal institution 28 located in Adelanto, California. -2- 1 thus an adversary proceeding may be needed. 2 The bankruptcy court denied the Motion on the grounds that 3 (1) Martin’s case was fully administered and closed; (2) Martin 4 was granted a discharge of all dischargeable debts; and (3) the 5 court heard and ruled on all issues of dischargeability with 6 respect to the CDC, finding its claim nondischargeable and any 7 collection efforts lawful. The court concluded that the 8 transfer of Martin’s bankruptcy case would be futile when the 9 estate was fully administered and no unresolved issues remained. 10 Martin filed a timely notice of appeal from the bankruptcy 11 court’s order. 12 II. JURISDICTION 13 The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over this proceeding 14 under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157(b)(1) and (2). We have 15 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158. 16 III. ISSUE 17 Whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by 18 denying Martin’s motion to transfer his closed bankruptcy case 19 from the District of Arizona to the Central District of 20 California. 21 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW 22 A decision denying transfer of a bankruptcy case to another 23 district is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Donald v. 24 Curry (In re Donald), 328 B.R. 192, 196 (9th Cir. BAP 2005). 25 A bankruptcy court abuses its discretion if it applies the 26 wrong legal standard, misapplies the correct legal standard, or 27 if its factual findings are illogical, implausible or without 28 support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the -3- 1 record. See TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. Edriver Inc., 653 F.3d 2 820, 832 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Hinkson, 3 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc)). 4 V. DISCUSSION 5 Rule 1014 provides in relevant part: 6 (a) Dismissal and transfer of cases 7 (1) Cases filed in proper district 8 If a petition is filed in the proper district, the court, on the timely motion of a party in interest or 9 on its own motion, and after hearing on notice to the petitioners, the United States trustee, and other 10 entities as directed by the court, may transfer the case to any other district if the court determines 11 that the transfer is in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties. 12 13 By its terms, the Rule requires a timely motion and a 14 showing that the transfer is in the interest of justice or for 15 the convenience of the parties. As the record shows, 16 substantial developments in the case rendered Martin’s Motion 17 for the transfer of his case untimely filed. Martin received 18 his discharge under § 727 of all dischargeable debts and his 19 case was fully administered and closed. Further, the bankruptcy 20 court had made rulings regarding the CDC’s collection of the 21 nondischargeable restitution debt. Thus, the transfer of 22 Martin’s closed case from the District of Arizona to the Central 23 District of California would be futile. 24 In rendering its decision, the bankruptcy court applied the 25 correct legal standard and its factual findings were plausible 26 and supported by inferences drawn from the facts in the record. 27 Accordingly, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion 28 by denying Martin’s Motion. -4- 1 VI. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated, we AFFIRM. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5-